WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Terrestrial Wild Animals
›
Carnivorous and Omnivores Animals, Excluding Felids
›
Bears
Bear Size ~
Bear Size ~
|
Bear Size ~
|
 (01-28-2016, 04:56 PM)brotherbear Wrote: Largest Boone and Crockett Skulls: But how many short faced bear skulls have been measured compared to Kodiak?  (01-28-2016, 08:27 PM)Pckts Wrote:(01-28-2016, 04:56 PM)brotherbear Wrote: Largest Boone and Crockett Skulls: That is the *record short-faced bear skull thus-far discovered. The question is: how many is that considering the La Brea Tar Pits?
That skull is only from the tar pits? I'd assume the number of skulls found in the tar pit is minimal compared to Kodiaks who have been hunted throughout history. Image a skull library of short faced bears equal to Kodiaks.
I'm sure you'd find some massive skulls
Dumpster bears living in Katmai National Park are highly unlikely. The park service has been "on top this problem" for a long time now. There were big bears in the wild long before dumpsters were even invented. Pckts, you seem to have the idea that every big bear is a garbage-eater.
Even those grizzlies who do manage to gain weight from raiding dumpsters can be considered as survivalists. A bear will fill his need to gain the weight needed for the long winter months any way he can. But any form of dumpster is strictly regulated and monitored in our national parks.
Bro bear, I edited my last post. Take a look
Also I certainly don't think large bears are dumpster diving bears, i have never said such a thing. I think cartoonishly obese bears are usually dumpster diving but that's not their fault and yes, they are opportunistic and found ways to be successful in ever changing environments. (01-28-2016, 08:42 PM)Pckts Wrote: That skull is only from the tar pits? I'd assume the number of skulls found in the tar pit is minimal compared to Kodiaks who have been hunted throughout history. Image a skull library of short faced bears equal to Kodiaks.First of all, I never said that particular skull is from the tar pits. I was making the point that lots of Pleistocene remains have been found there. Also, I am not saying that either of those skulls are the biggest of either species. remember that it wasn't until the 1950s that the Boone and Crockett Club began the skull trophy idea. All during the 19th century and early 20th century I doubt that very many skulls were collected. It's simply that when I compared the biggest-as-yet discovered Arctodus simus skull with that of the biggest Kodiak bear skull recorded, I was very surprised at so slight a difference in length. The short-faced bear's skull is, I'm sure, heavier as those bears had powerful cat-like jaws.
I'm not trying to start a debate, I'm simply asking how many Kodiaks skulls have been measured compared to short face skulls?
I'm not in front of a PC atm so I can't access the numbers. But I'd assume it's very minimal compared to Kodiaks, correct? So if you have a small sample size like that yet the skull is still that large, imagine if you had a massive sample size. You would most definitely find larger skulls. 
If I'm not mistaken, A. simus had a proportionately shorter skull. Thus, it's possible that the largest A. simus skulls don't far surpass modern bears, even though clearly in body size there is a major difference. Interspecifically, skull size is one of the last things correlated with body size. A. simus and modern brown bears are quite different in morphology, so we see that discrepancy in expected skull size against actual skull size here.
I was just curious on sample size?
I would assume a bear named "short face" would certainly not have a relatively "large skull" just interested in their sizes.
I can't say much about the modern specimen sample sizes, but usually, prehistoric sample sizes are much scanter. Tar pits did us a favor in getting a better sample size of those species, but in my opinion the sample size caveat is probably valid.
(01-28-2016, 09:16 PM)Pckts Wrote: I'm not trying to start a debate, I'm simply asking how many Kodiaks skulls have been measured compared to short face skulls?I'll just let it go...  (01-28-2016, 04:30 PM)brotherbear Wrote: Scroll down to 'Brown Bear Directory' page #1 and look at some of those bears pictured by Roflcopters. Some of those wild bears are fatter than any I have seen in captivity. Bears such as Bart, Bart Jr, and Brutus are probably less muscular than their wild brothers, but they are certainly not obese on bear terms. Jimbo while not truly obese is probably fatter than he should be year-round. This is true. I've also seen wild bears actually measured in body fat percentage far exceeding that of some captive bears. The opposite can happen as well according to treatment. (01-28-2016, 10:36 PM)tigerluver Wrote: I can't say much about the modern specimen sample sizes, but usually, prehistoric sample sizes are much scanter. Tar pits did us a favor in getting a better sample size of those species, but in my opinion the sample size caveat is probably valid. Do you mean short-faced bears or prehistoric brown bears?
As for those so-called "obese bears" in captivity, one reason to carefully monitor a captive bears weight is the fact that they do not hibernate. No grizzly should live out his years in full-time hibernation mode.
(01-28-2016, 10:36 PM)tigerluver Wrote: I can't say much about the modern specimen sample sizes, but usually, prehistoric sample sizes are much scanter. Tar pits did us a favor in getting a better sample size of those species, but in my opinion the sample size caveat is probably valid. I agree completely. Why would the biggest and baddest short-faced bears be stand-offish at such a feast as mammoths and mastodons stuck in a tar pit? |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |